DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 10/24/2025 (“Amendment”). Claims 21-27, 29, 30, 34, 36-39, and 41-45 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 34, as well as the cancellation of claims 28, 31-33, 35, and 40 and the addition of new claims 41-45.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “to different target VOC” should instead read –to a different target VOC--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 26, antecedent basis for the recitation of “one or more processors” is unclear since claim 21 already introduces a processor. Are these the same or different processors?
Regarding claim 30, the recitation of “a second ionic layer” is unclear because a first ionic layer has not been recited. Further, the recitation of “to different targe VOC in comparison to the target VOC” is unclear because it can be interpreted as referring to itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-26, 29, 30, 34, 36, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0056302 (“Ahmad’302”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0069818 (“Prasad”) and non-patent publication Wang, Zhe, et al. "Highly sensitive capacitive gas sensing at ionic liquid–electrode interfaces." Analytical chemistry 88.3 (2016): 1959-1964 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 21, Ahmad’302 teaches [a] detection device for detecting one or more volatile organic compounds (VOCs)(¶¶s 0101, 0102), the detection device comprising: an electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode (¶¶s 0221, 0279) …; a power supply electrically coupled to the electrode of the electrochemical sensor, the power supply being configured to generate an input signal having the voltage amplitude (¶¶s 0145 and 0173, the sensor and associated electrodes having an input power – also see ¶ 0194, a battery pack); and a processor communicatively coupled to the power supply, the processor configured to perform … operations … (¶¶s 0124, 0136, 0189, etc.).
Ahmad’302 does not appear to explicitly teach the sensor comprising an ionic liquid arranged over the electrode, the ionic liquid configured to form a nanocavity between ionic layers of the ionic liquid, the ionic liquid configured to form the nanocavity having a size specific to a target VOC in response to applying a voltage amplitude of an input signal to the electrode, the size of the nanocavity varying according to the voltage amplitude of the input signal applied to the electrode; the processor configured to perform the following operations: select a voltage amplitude specific to the size of the nanocavity to be formed, the size of the nanocavity specific to the target VOC for capturing the target VOC; and apply, using the power supply, the input signal having the voltage amplitude to the electrode of the electrochemical sensor to cause the ionic liquid to form the nanocavity having the size specific to the target VOC for capturing the target VOC.
Prasad teaches using an ionic liquid arranged over an electrode for electrochemical sensing (¶ 0021 describes using an ionic liquid for electrochemical sensing, and ¶ 0024 describes its arrangement over an electrode). Prasad teaches applying an input signal to the electrochemical sensor to perform gating of species (¶ 0042, applying a direct current field to achieve electrophoretic modulation and diffusion of charged species, which creates a gating effect).
Wang teaches that an ionic liquid-electrode interface has different amounts and sizes of unoccupied spaces at different applied dc potentials, and the potential can tune the crystalline ordering of the ionic liquids, generating optimal structure and properties of the unoccupied spaces and enabling selective adsorption of a specific size of gas molecule (first paragraph of the Results and Discussion section).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ionic liquid in the electrochemical sensor of Ahmad’302 to achieve a gating effect via application of an input signal to the sensor, as in Prasad, for the purpose of improving sensing by enhancing transport and mobility of target analytes via gating (Prasad: ¶¶s 0024, 0030, 0042, 0043). It would have been obvious to do this as described in Wang, e.g. by applying different potentials selected to create nanocavities having a size that is specific to the target gas molecule, for the purpose of implementing an ultrasensitive and tunable gas-detection method (Wang: Abstract, selective sensing; Prasad: ¶ 0042, gating of specific species).
Regarding claim 22, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches wherein the ionic liquid comprises a room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) (Prasad: Abstract, ¶ 0021, etc.; Wang: first paragraph).
Regarding claims 23 and 29, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches wherein the voltage amplitude of the input signal is adjusted to match a redox potential of the target VOC (Prasad: ¶¶s 0025, 0037-0039, 0042, etc., describing the tailored generation of the electric field for specific species; Wang: first paragraph of the Results and Discussion section).
Regarding claims 24-26, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches wherein the size of the nanocavity corresponds to a redox potential of the target VOC (Prasad: ¶¶s 0042, 0043, the size of the cavity is tailored to the specific species, which in the combination is e.g. heptane and/or NO2; Wang: first paragraph of the Results and Discussion section), wherein the nanocavity is configured to capture the target VOC such that the captured VOC diffuses toward the electrode (Prasad: ¶ 0042, achieving diffusion towards the functionalized sensing surface/electrode - also see ¶ 0024, etc.), further comprising one or more processors (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0124) configured to detect the captured VOC based at least in part on a change in at least one of an impedance or a current measured at the electrode (Prasad: ¶¶s 0026, 0042, etc. - also see Fig. 1, showing a microcontroller 115).
Regarding claim 30, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches a second electrochemical sensor having a second ionic layer, wherein the second ionic layer is specific to different target VOC in comparison to the target VOC (Prasad: ¶ 0024, each sensor of the array is independently functionalized for specific detection of a respective target analyte, allowing monitoring of multiple different analytes).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches a mouthpiece configured to pass a volume of breath to a surface of the electrochemical sensor, wherein the mouthpiece is coupled to a compartment coupleable to the electrochemical sensor, wherein the compartment is sealable and configured to store the volume of breath (Ahmad’302: Fig. 10 shows e.g. a face mask 42 directing a volume of breath toward a sensor inside chamber 48, and ¶ 0088 explains that a mouthpiece is an obvious alternative to a face mask for fluid input. As such, it would have been obvious to use a mouthpiece instead of a face mask as a matter of obvious design choice, and as the simple substitution of one fluid input arrangement for another with predictable results. Fig. 10, distendable volume 45 located between the mouthpiece on the left and the sensor on the right. Volume 45 is sealable via e.g. valve 49 and stores the volume of breath (¶ 0262 - also see ¶ 0094)), wherein the compartment is compressible (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0261, the volume 45 is a compressible compartment because it is distendable - also see ¶¶s 0088, 0347, etc., explicitly describing a bag).
Regarding claim 41, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches wherein the ionic liquid is polarized into a cationic layer and an anionic layer in response to applying the voltage amplitude of the input signal to the electrode (Prasad: Fig. 3; Wang: first paragraph of the Results and Discussion section, tuning the crystalline ordering of the ionic liquids. Also, note that because the art teaches the same structure, the same function is obtained).
Regarding claims 42-44, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 41, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang further teaches wherein the nanocavity having the size is formed from stretched bonds between the cationic layer and the anionic layer of the ionic liquid (Wang: first paragraph of the Results and Discussion section, size differences based on the dc potential), wherein the stretched bonds between the cationic layer and the anionic layer are formed in response to applying the voltage amplitude of the input signal to the electrode for capturing the target VOC between the cationic layer and the anionic layer of the ionic liquid (Wang, as above), wherein the stretched bonds formed between the cationic layer and the anionic layer match dimensions of the target VOC (Wang, as above).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0099129 (“Kopelman”).
Regarding claim 27, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to an alarm configured to provide an alert in response to detecting the target VOC using the electrochemical sensor (although Ahmad’302: ¶ 0264 does describe using a sensor for communicating with local alarms).
Kopelman teaches alerting a user when a particular marker is sensed (¶ 0105).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to issue the alarm contemplated by Ahmad’302 when the target VOC was detected, as in Kopelman, for the purpose of alerting a user that action may be required (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0264; Kopelman: ¶ 0105).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0245797 (“Ahmad’797”).
Regarding claim 37, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 34, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the compartment comprises one or more one-way valves.
Ahmad’797 teaches a breath bag having a one-way valve (¶ 0234).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the one-way valve contemplated by Ahmad’302 from the mouthpiece (¶ 0093) to the breath bag, as in Ahmad’797, as an obvious rearrangement of parts. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0133120 (“Varney”).
Regarding claim 38, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate.
Varney teaches using this ionic liquid in an electrochemical sensor (¶ 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this ionic liquid in the combination as the simple substitution of one known ionic liquid for another with predictable results (performing electrochemical sensing), and for the purpose of achieving wide detection range and stability (Varney: ¶ 0015). This usefulness also suggests that the particular ionic liquid would have been “obvious to try.”
Claims 39 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0293590 (“Zeng”).
Regarding claim 39, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium trifluoromethane sulfonate.
Zeng teaches using this ionic liquid in a similar application (¶ 0106, CF3SO3− as the anion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this ionic liquid in the combination as the simple substitution of one known ionic liquid for another with predictable results (Zeng: Abstract, permitting absorption and detection of analytes using electrochemical means - also see e.g. ¶ 0012, describing control over selectivity and sensitivity, ¶ 0023, achieving a fast linear and reversible response). This usefulness also suggests that the particular ionic liquid would have been “obvious to try.”
Regarding claim 45, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Wang does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the ionic liquid includes a 1- ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium salt.
Zeng teaches using 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium as an ionic liquid in an electrochemical sensor (the Abstract and ¶ 0187 describe the sensor, and ¶¶s 0105 and 0106 describe 1-alkyl-3-methylimidazolium, where the alkyl is an independently selected alkyl group such as C.sub.2 (ethyl)). Zeng teaches that this sensor can detect organic vapors including heptane and environmental gas including NO2 (¶¶s 0100, 0101, 0111, 0187, etc. - compare to ¶ 0010 of Applicant’s specification as filed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium as the ionic liquid in the combination, as in Zeng, as the simple substitution of one known ionic liquid for another with predictable results (Zeng: Abstract, permitting absorption and detection of analytes using electrochemical means - also see e.g. ¶ 0012, describing control over selectivity and sensitivity, ¶ 0023, achieving a fast linear and reversible response).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered. They are persuasive to the extent that Prasad is not explicit regarding selecting a voltage to create a size of nanocavity specific to a target VOC. Therefore, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Wang, and all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights